CURRENT-AFFAIRS

General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, and International Relations

Context

Recently, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment clarifying that access to menstrual health is not merely a health facility but an integral part of the 'Right to Life' under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court recognized that the lack of Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) in schools deprives female students of education and pushes them toward social humiliation.

What is Menstrual Health?

Menstruation, commonly referred to as 'periods' or 'mahwari', is a natural and healthy biological process occurring in a woman's body.

Why does it happen?

Every month, a woman's body prepares itself for a potential pregnancy. In this process, a soft layer of blood and tissues forms on the walls of the uterus.

• When a woman does not conceive, the body no longer requires this layer.
• Consequently, this layer breaks down and exits the body through the vagina. This is called menstruation.

Why in the News?

• On January 30, 2026, the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment in the case of Dr. Jaya Thakur vs. Union of India.
• The Court directed all States and Union Territories to ensure free sanitary napkins, vending machines, and 'MHM Corners' in schools.
• The Court clarified that "A period should not be the end of a girl's education."

Constitutional Provisions

The Court linked this issue to three major constitutional pillars:

• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The right to live with dignity includes health and hygiene.
• Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): Depriving educational opportunities based on menstruation is gender-based discrimination.
• Right to Equality (Articles 14 & 15): The lack of resources for girls compared to boys is an obstacle to their educational development, which is now the State's responsibility to address.
• Article 21A (Right to Education): If a girl leaves school due to a lack of basic facilities, it is a violation of her fundamental right to education.
• Right to Privacy: Managing menstruation in a safe and private space is part of a student’s individual privacy.

Key Guidelines and Decisions of the Supreme Court

• Constitutional Declaration

• Part of Article 21: The Court declared that access to Menstrual Health and Management (MHM) is an integral part of the 'Right to Life and Dignity' under Article 21.
• Bodily Autonomy: The lack of hygiene facilities is a violation of the 'bodily autonomy' and 'right to privacy' of female students.

• Directions for Infrastructure

• Gender-Segregated Toilets: It is mandatory for every school (government, aided, and private) to have separate, functional, and safe toilets for female students.
• Availability of Water: Continuous clean water supply must be ensured in toilets.
• MHM Corners: Special 'Menstrual Hygiene Corners' should be created in schools where spare clothes, innerwear, and towels are available for emergencies.

• Availability of Sanitary Products

• Free Distribution: Free sanitary napkins must be provided to all female students.
• Vending Machines: Sanitary napkin vending machines should be installed in schools, preferably within the toilet premises to maintain student privacy.
• Product Quality: The Court prioritized the use of 'oxo-biodegradable' sanitary napkins to prevent environmental damage.

• Waste Management

• Safe Disposal: Toilets must have 'incinerators' or proper waste management systems for the disposal of used napkins.

• Awareness and Sensitization

• Role of Men: The Court explicitly stated that educating only female students is not enough. Male teachers and students must also be sensitized to the 'biological reality' of menstruation so that female students do not face any harassment or embarrassment.
• Erasing Stigma: Efforts should be made to eliminate social taboos associated with menstruation through educational curriculum and programs.

Steps Taken by the Government of India:

• Menstrual Hygiene Scheme (MHS): Launched by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, this scheme aims to increase awareness among adolescent girls (10-19 years) in rural areas and provide sanitary napkins at subsidized rates (e.g., under the 'Freedays' brand).
• Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin and Urban): Under this, emphasis has been placed on the construction of separate and functional toilets specifically for female students in schools. Guidelines have also been issued to install 'incinerators' for the disposal of used pads.
• Rashtriya Kishor Swasthya Karyakram (RKSK): Through this program, 'Peer Educators' and ASHA workers work at the community level to dispel myths related to menstruation and provide health education.
• Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP): Through its Jan Aushadhi Kendras, the government provides oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins named 'Suvidha' for just ₹1, making them accessible to the economically weaker sections.
• Ministry of Education Guidelines: Under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, financial assistance is provided to schools to install sanitary pad vending machines and disposal systems.

Current Status of Women and Female Students in India

• NFHS-5 Data: In India, approximately 77.3% of women aged 15-24 use hygienic methods, but even today, about 23% of women rely on unsafe means (ash, dirty cloth, leaves).
• Impact on Education: Various studies indicate that approximately 20-25% of girls in rural areas do not attend school for a few days every month or drop out entirely due to menstruation.

Society vs. Problem: Stereotypes and Health Challenges

• Social Acceptance: In many parts of India, menstruation is still considered 'impure'. Prohibitions like banning entry into religious places and kitchens create psychological pressure.
• Health Risks: Unsafe practices increase the risk of serious diseases like cervical cancer and Reproductive Tract Infections (RTI).
• Lack of Awareness: Many girls reaching adolescence have no scientific information about their first period, leading to fear and a sense of inferiority.

Barriers in Implementation

• Infrastructure and Resources: There is a massive shortage of separate toilets, continuous water, and electricity for vending machines in rural schools.
• Financial and Logistical: There is a lack of a permanent budget and a robust supply chain for the continuous supply of free products and the maintenance of machines.
• Social Taboos: Deep-rooted stereotypes and shame in society cause students to hesitate in seeking help or using facilities.
• Administrative and Environmental: The lack of an effective monitoring mechanism and the safe, eco-friendly disposal of used pads remain major challenges.
• Insensitivity: The lack of scientific awareness among male teachers and students hinders the creation of a supportive environment.

Analysis

This judgment is a positive example of Judicial Activism. The Court did not just issue an order but made it enforceable by linking it to the norms of the Right to Education (RTE) Act. However, merely making a law is not enough; the challenge lies in its 'implementation' at the rural level and in changing the 'mindset' of society. Sensitizing male teachers and students is the key to solving this problem.

Way Forward

• Community Participation: Increasing awareness in rural areas through Anganwadi and ASHA workers.
• Affordable Alternatives: Encouraging local Self-Help Groups (SHGs) to manufacture sanitary pads to reduce costs.
• Digital Monitoring: Developing a dashboard to monitor the status of facilities in schools.
• Male Sensitization: Presenting menstruation as a 'human reality' rather than a 'women’s issue'.

Conclusion

This judgment of the Supreme Court is akin to a 'Magna Carta' for gender justice in India. It is not just about distributing sanitary pads, but about breaking the system that holds girls back due to their biological status. Only when half the country's population is educated with dignity and health can the dream of a truly 'Developed India' be realized.

Reference

The struggle to make campuses discrimination-free in the history of Indian higher education is decades old. Tragic suicides of students like Rohith Vemula and cases of increasing caste discrimination on campuses gave rise to the need for a stringent legal framework that is effective rather than just being on paper. In this backdrop, the University Grants Commission (UGC) notified new 'Promotion of Equity' rules in January 2026, which have recently been stayed by the Supreme Court.

What is UGC?

The University Grants Commission is a statutory body of the Government of India, established under the UGC Act, 1956.

• Function: Its main function is to coordinate, determine, and maintain the standards of higher education in India.
• Role: It recognizes universities and distributes government funds.

Why in the News?

• The Supreme Court has put an interim stay on the 'Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026' notified by the UGC in January.
• The Court has termed these rules as "too sweeping." These rules were made to prevent caste discrimination on campuses, but due to disputes arising over some of its provisions and definitions, this matter has reached the judiciary.

UGC's New Rules

These rules have been prepared based on the recommendations of various committees like the Professor Thorat Committee and Justice Roopanwal Committee, and previous court directions.

• Scope of Exploitation: The rules mainly target verbal, physical, and mental exploitation occurring with students of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
• Equal Opportunity Centre: Every institution will have a centre that will solve the academic and social problems of students from deprived sections.
• Equity Squad and Helpline: Formation of a helpline and 'Equity Squad' (squads) for immediate reporting of incidents of discrimination on campuses.
• Representation in Inquiry Committees: According to the rules, it is mandatory to have at least one member from the SC/ST/OBC category in the committee investigating any complaint of discrimination.
  • It also mentions proper representation of women and minority sections so that the investigation can be impartial.
• Time-bound Resolution: Ensuring resolution within a fixed time frame (usually 30 days) after the complaint is filed.
• Punitive Provisions: Withholding the grant amount of institutions or recommending cancellation of their recognition in case of non-compliance with the rules.

Reason for Controversy

• Definition of Discrimination: In the rules, discrimination has been limited only to acts committed against SC/ST and OBC, due to which students of the general category felt neglected.
• False Complaints: There was a lack of clear provisions for action against false complaints in the new rules, leading to fears of its misuse.
• Violation of Autonomy: Some educational institutions argue that these UGC rules interfere excessively in their internal administration.

Comments of the Supreme Court

While imposing the stay, the Court said the following key things:

• The language of the rules is so broad that it can create uncertainty in the educational environment.
• The Court asked whether these rules strike a balance between the rights of all stakeholders?
• The Court emphasized that measures to prevent discrimination must be within constitutional limits.

2012 Rules vs. Current Status

• 2012 Rules: UGC had made similar rules in 2012 as well, but they could not be implemented effectively. Educational institutions almost completely ignored them.
• Irrelevance: There was a lack of strict monitoring and punitive action in the 2012 rules. Despite the old rules, a two-fold increase was seen in complaints of discrimination in the last five years, which gave rise to the need for new and stringent rules.

Legal and Constitutional Provisions

• Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
• Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability.
• Article 21: Right to live with dignity.
• Article 46: Promotion of educational and economic interests of SC/ST and other weaker sections.

Analysis

• This case reflects the conflict between 'affirmative action' and 'administrative control.' While on one hand, caste discrimination on campuses is a bitter reality, on the other hand, the ambiguity of the rules hinders their implementation.
• The failure of the 2012 rules proves that social reform is difficult without 'monitoring' and 'punishment.' The Court's stay can be an opportunity not to abolish the rules, but to make them more balanced and constitutionally accurate.

Way Forward

• Inclusive Definition: The definition of discrimination in the rules should be broadened so that a student from any background can benefit from it.
• Protection against Misuse: Safeguards should be added to prevent false complaints, without intimidating the complainants.
• Sensitization: Change will not come from law alone; sensitization programs for teachers and students on campuses should be mandatory.
• Digital Reporting: A central portal should be created for transparent and anonymous reporting of complaints.

Conclusion

Ensuring equality in higher education institutions is essential for the future of India. The intervention of the Supreme Court can make this reform process more equitable. The goal should be not just to make rules, but to create an environment where no student has to face humiliation or agony because of their identity. As the Rohith Vemula case taught—campuses should be temples of knowledge, not arenas of discrimination.